The Bloody Feet of the RCP Canada

Editor’s Note: This post is part of a larger work currently under production detailing the reactionary nature of the PRC-RCP and the damage it does to revolution, Third World people, and Marxism as a science. This is just a large sample of what will be produced for a final work to be completed at an undetermined time.

One of the greatest failings of First Worldist communism today is the inability to advance the science of Marxism. Marxism is the science of revolution, thus with any science it must be continually updated and made to correspond to any knowledge that has been gained. First Worldism has utterly failed to do this. It remains stuck in the past refusing to acknowledge that time has passed and that we live in a different era from Marx, Lenin, and Mao. Lenin did not live in the same historical period with its concrete material conditions as Marx. The concrete conditions faced by Mao in 1930s Asian China were not the same as those faced by Lenin in 1917 European Russia. Each of these men required new theatrical contributions to function, and create revolution during the time in which they lived. First Worldist communism has failed to advance itself in any positive way, shape or form.

The other problem is the destruction of the meaning of the past theories that have been created. First Worldist Marxists have taken the theoretical advancements of both men and changed their meanings to fit what is convenient to them. The words of Mao and Lenin have been altered to fit what First Worldists want them to mean. As a prime example I give this all too common example. Lenin said to use the tools of the day to promote the knowledge communism to as much of the masses as possible. In his time it mean using newspapers. This was a very valuable way to get the proletarian message out to the public and make our ideas known. In this day and age that medium is the internet. Unfortunately this tool has not been used to its greatest effect. Many Marxists produce petty childishness in the way of personal drama, others produce “internet memes” as way of… Well, I’m not sure what they are supposed to achieve. The PRC-RCP have used this tool to create online drama to bolster their own public image. They make personal attacks in order prop up their own virtually non-existent standing in Canada. Both of these trends are a liberalism that Mao spoke of that must be combated, and hopefully be self-criticized for.

Even the idea of “People’s War” has been shamefully degenerated into meaningless protest. Revolutionary acts have been degenerated into Occupy protests. The RCP Canada has proclaimed that protesting and handing out fliers is a “stage of People’s War”. In a very most clear way this is a distortion of what Mao wrote. It has been remade into First World revolutionary cosplaying. These same people post pictures of “guerrilla porn” on Facebook; images of revolutionary fighters in the Third World taking the action they do not and cannot take. They chant slogans about doing People’s War while living comfortable lives off the enslavement and murder of countries occupied by imperialism. The internet is being used by most First Worldists to degrade, insult, and generally make Marxism look terrible.

They have in the most bold form refused to truly understand the concrete conditions we face today and create theory based upon it. They try to make themselves into revolutionaries according to the words of Lenin and Mao, then rage in self-glorification when they are entirely unsuccessful. They take the words of conditions the past and hold them dogmatically. Mao called this “cutting the toes to fit the shoes”.[1] They try to make what they are, where they are, fit a definition which does not correspond to where they are and what they are. This applies to their ideas of Protracted People’s War, their lack of understanding of it, and their inability to understand theory in general. The theory they use does not fit the reality they live in. They insist that they are the revolutionary vanguard doing People’s War when such a notion is simply ludicrous.

They make the very same fundamental mistake that Wang Ming made when he was leading the Chinese Communist Party to ruin. He insisted dogmatically along with the 28 Bolsheviks that an industrial worker’s movement was the key to revolution. He was proven disastrously wrong when his efforts failed and nearly lead to the deaths of the entire cadre. It was Mao and a few others who rallied what remained and went on the Long March to resettle in the countryside. There Mao engaged in an investigation into what had happened and why they had failed. It was discovered that industrial workers comprised an incredibly small portion of the population. It was realized that the vast majority of the country were peasants, and that they constituted a large exploited class for which to form the basis of revolution. Mao cast aside dogma that did not fit the time and the conditions in which he lived in order to create revolution.

This failure by Wang Ming is exactly what the RCP Canada is doing right now. They are cutting their global petite bourgeois feet to fit the proletarian shoes they want to wear. An honest look down at themselves should tell them that their feet are bleeding.

Fictional Material Conditions

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves
not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
– John Steinbeck, Interview with Robert van Gelder (April 1947)

The most glaring failure by the RCP is to recognise the absence of an objectively revolutionary situation. The First World in general is not, and may never have been in an objectively revolutionary situation. In their minds the Canadian people, the colonizer settler country is the victim. In fact these same people are to a large extent the perpetrators themselves. The White population of Canada can hardly be called oppressed, and they certainly cannot be called exploited given their global economic position. In fact Canada has almost the strongest middle class of the industrialized West.[2] Yet despite this they assert that they are victims of a global exploitative order that they benefit from. Any attempt to compare themselves to the Third World is laughable. Some associated have actually done so. The New Communist Party (NCP), more commonly known as the “New York Maoists” have gone so far in chats as to declare that the United States has Third World level living conditions for workers. Such self-delusion and self-pity is nonsense.

The Canadian population in fact has it even better than the U.S. population. Aside from a stronger middle class, we also have healthcare made accessible to the population in a way that many in the U.S. wish they had. Canada did not suffer anywhere close to what the U.S. suffered from the global collapse of capitalism in 2008. Our level of regulation upon financial capital was sufficient to avoid such a disaster. While we have still been affected by the actions of the U.S., we have not suffered from the devastation they have. Speaking to the RCP, or reading their works you would get the impression that the country was ready to collapse at any minute. You would get the idea that an $11 (CDN) an hour worker was the equivalent to the global poverty wage of less than $2 USD a day.[3] In truth the material conditions that they proclaim are not what their rhetoric makes them out to be.

“The communist movement, which represents the most advanced political expression of the proletariat, has always asserted that the seizure of state power and the holding of it are essential conditions to society’s transition towards communism. Surely enough, some will claim that we are a long shot from our goal. However we must recognize that the broad masses are starting to rise, though not always to the extent we would wish, and that more and more workers are rejecting the old political alternatives used to trick them and maintain them in their misery.”[4]

Certainly they are very far from their goal. These words claiming that the masses are beginning to rise were written in 2002. It has been more than ten years since then and we have seen no significant change in those supposedly rising Canadian masses. In fact, the GDP of Canada has increased since that time. (752.5 billion in 2002, to 2014 1.825 trillion in 2014.)[5] Some of those spoils going to the “working class” of Canada. After all wages have grown since that time. The Nasdaq early in March of this year closed the highest since the Dotcom Bubble of 2001 at about 5,008.[6] Yes, some will claim that you are far from your goal of proletarian revolution. It is in fact nowhere in sight. It has been more than ten years since these words were uttered. There has been no revolution, the Canadian “masses” have not risen up, nor begun to rise up as they have claimed. No increasing amounts of people in Canada are turning towards communism as a solution to the problem of global capitalism. Canadian people benefit quite well from it, particularly with regards to the aforementioned old political alternatives.

This line of claiming that people are rejecting “the old political alternatives” is outright false. The “old political alternative” is usually the New Democratic Party (NDP) which is largely social democratic making promises of a semi-welfare state for the working and middle class. In 2000 the Party on the federal level had 13 seats as the fourth largest party,[7] in the last federal election (2011) they managed to hold 103 seats as the second largest party.[8] The reality is quite the opposite from what they have claimed. The “old political alternative” has actually massively expanded its influence in the country. The “masses” of Canada are not turning away from the bourgeois provided alternatives towards communism. They are in fact gripping more tightly to the preservation of First World privileges and benefits. All of the material bribes that keep the “working class” from engaging in revolution. Meaning they have much more than their chains to lose, a lot more.

In moments the RCP takes current struggles and proclaims them to be part of a larger revolutionary trend with does not exist in order to justify their false outlook. The most common claim made, not just by them but others as well, is that the current conflict over the Alberta tar sands is part of a larger struggle. It most certainly not connected to a larger Canadian proletarian struggle, as there isn’t one. The tar sands conflict is a First Nations issue in which the First Nations people face a continuous systematic killing of their people via environmental destruction. The White settler colonizer population of Canada has no concern for the struggles of the First Nations people. White Canadians actually benefit from the development of the tar sands in terms of high paying employment which First Nations are traditionally excluded from. These jobs go to White privileged college graduates like the RCP party members themselves. White Canadians, the settler colonizer population, directly benefit from the further oppression and killing of First Nations people. You cannot count them as allies in struggle. The White population doesn’t have concern for the trials and oppression of First Nations people. People like the RCP live in protest circles, people who are “professional protesters”. These are people who have dedicated their lives to protest. They are not however reflective of the greater population as a whole. These protester circles care about First Nations oppression, the White “masses” do not. What this demonstrates is that such protesters and the RCP are disconnected from the greater population. They claim it is part of a greater protest movement that does not exist. They are only seeing what exists in their small radical groups, not what is going on in the population as whole. They are disconnected from the masses because Canadians are not the masses. They are privileged First Worlders who have far more than their chains to lose, and actually benefit from greater exploitation elsewhere.

“When writing about revolution, Lenin isn’t describing abstract social forces but objective material conditions (military, economic, political). Even if the working class cannot hope for victory by extending its reach beyond material reality, it however strives for victory within these very same limits-small triumphs allowing the workers’ movement to systemize its experience. Because in the end, the proletariat’s victory depends on its subjective capability in determining the kind of struggle that is the most suitable to its reality.”[9]

These words speak very much to two things: 1. They don’t take their own advice, and 2. the exaggeration they make of themselves and what they have done. The objective material conditions of Canada are well far behind what would be necessary to even have an impact with agitation. To this I refer to my previous statements of the enrichment of the nation and the middle class in particular. They really don’t understand the material conditions which the Canadian public finds itself in. Politically we have a fair amount of stability. When I say this I am well aware of Bill C-51[10] and the growing resistance to it. However true this is, it is not what Lenin described. When he was writing of the situation he was talking about violence in the streets, politics being settled with weapons as much as they were words. Governments were threatening to collapse under the weight of unrest. This is not what the Canadian government faces. We in Canada have never seen this. Perhaps the closest was when Fred Rose was ousted from parliament on what are very likely fraudulent charges.[11] Now in terms of military (by this I assume militancy against the Canadian state) there is no upheaval at all. At best we have isolated incidents of lone shooters whose mental health are questionable. In terms of labour related violence there is nothing at all. Perhaps there is an isolated incident here or there, but they are by no means part of some larger phenomenon of militant labour.

In their view (if I am interpreting these vague words correctly) they are saying they will conduct worker’s struggles, and win, to gain knowledge. This knowledge is then to be taken and placed into an investigation to work out how to build revolution at a later date. This does seem like a correct line. But we are forced to ask, what victories are we talking about? The greatest example would be the victory of universal health care led by Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan.[12] What victories of the working class have they been a part of or engaged in? In the last several decades all movements have been dominated by social democrats and liberals. I would be interested to see what kind of struggle is most suitable to reality in their opinion. Looking through their materials I don’t see much they have said beyond declaring the need to form proletarian groups and overthrow the Canadian state. This seems to almost say nothing at all. What experience are they referring to? What have they learned from what they have done? What have they learned from others?

What kind of struggle are we talking about? What have they done? In their entire existence they have attended protests and handed out their literature. There is nothing wrong with that, but they seem to magnify it beyond what it is. They have claimed to have taken a great deal of anti-bourgeois state action during the G20 protest. However their numbers were too insignificant to even be noticed. In a more revealing post, under their front groups Revolutionary Students Movement (MER-RSM) and the Proletarian Feminist Front, they claim victory over a Men’s Rights Activist demonstration.[13] The counter-protest was 20 people in all who managed to overpower an even smaller group. Out of the official record they leave the fact that they isolated one member of the group and assaulted him. While I have no problem with MRA’s being assaulted, I do take issue with this being the basis for the claim they “defeated a demonstration”. In another incident, the leader of their Ottawa University organization (UOttawa Marxist Students’ Association) stated their cowardly support for the use of violence against women.[14]

These people call themselves revolutionaries. They make the direct claim that they are revolutionaries. Since they call themselves revolutionaries, in their minds these actions are what revolution is. Is this what revolution is? No. Revolution is the active war and struggle against the bourgeois and its state. Revolution is taking class war into literal war. It involves an organized military campaign against police and military forces. It is certainly not gang attacks and threatening women. In this we can see more revolution from the horribly misguided Black Bloc anarchists. They have a magnified view of their actions taking their perception into a realm of absurdity, a massive exaggeration of what they are doing.

Despite their words here, they clearly do not know what the material conditions of Canada are. Nor do they have a reality based perception of their own actions and themselves.

“The current period is characterized by: fiercer economic and military confrontation between imperialist countries and the people in oppressed countries; development of contradictions between imperialist countries; relations that are once again becoming antagonistic; fiercer exploitation and oppression, between the ruling classes of imperialist countries and their working classes in which the former is on the offensive and eliminating the conquests that the latter had achieved; the capital’s destructive quest for surplus value, destroying all barriers that prevent its free circulation (whether it be investments in the Health care system, education, labor legislation, work security, etc.) These attacks are proof that the bourgeoisie is experiencing problems and is unable to maintain its domination as in the past, by distributing crumbs from its superprofits to the working class as it then did.”[15]

The description given of imperialism is frankly false. It is based on a perception of their lifetimes and not of history in general. Not just the original publish date of 2002, but even today there is not more military confrontation. There is actually less military confrontation. While recent developments between the United States and Russia have many people thinking there is going to be a World War Three, no such thing is actually in the works. There was a great deal more military confrontation during the Cold War then there is now. In fact there is substantially less conflict than there has been in history. Yes antagonisms are increasing between the imperialist nations, they are not the same as those described by Lenin or even Mao. Lenin theorized a repeating cycle of World Wars brought on by national financial capitals. This cycle of World Wars has ceased, as the nature of financial capital has altered since the times of Lenin and Mao.

Financial capital today is not like it was back then. We don’t have a collection of national capitals that are in direct conflict with another collection of national capitals. The largest and most powerful of financial institutions exist in multiple countries simultaneously. They don’t need a military conflict to get into Asia, Europe or Latin America. Financial capital no longer has a home country. It exists independent of countries floating above them with financial power. For example, financial company Goldman Sachs has investments in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Italy, Korea, Russia, Spain, Brazil, France, India, Japan, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, China, and all over Latin America and Europe.[16] Capital is no longer restrained to a single national interest as it was in Lenin’s day. Just Goldman Sachs alone has a capital interest in almost every country in the world. If a war was to break out between, say Russia and the U.S., they would stand to lose no matter what. The same scenario is true with a war between China and the U.S. Sure there are some moneyed interests that would make a ton off of weapons manufacturing, but they are fairly small in comparison to say the global financial giant’s potential losses. They don’t want world wars because now they have nothing to gain from them, they only have something to lose.

Another good example is the renewed militancy over the arctic. This is only because of the energy resources that have been discovered there. No one really “owns” the arctic, which is why so many countries are claiming ownership of it. Whoever does gets to collect the tax revenue from the energy company that drills out the oil and gas.

The only real threats of military conflicts left are the places where financial capital has not gotten its claws into yet, or where its claws have been dug out. The DPRK, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, and formerly Libya are prime examples of this. The hostility of capital and therefore imperialism, is focused on these nations for a reason and not into direct military conflict with Russia, China, or Brazil. Much of the financial capital today exists in all of those countries simultaneous but not in the former nations. Look at the end of the embargo against Cuba. Are we to think that U.S. President Obama did this out of the goodness of his heart? No, such a notion is nonsense. There has to have been some concession by Raul Castro in the secret negotiations which precipitated this change in U.S. policy.[17]

In another section they claim that “fiercer exploitation and oppression, between the ruling classes of imperialist countries and their working classes in which the former is on the offensive and eliminating the conquests that the latter had achieved; the capital’s destructive quest for surplus value, destroying all barriers that prevent its free circulation”. This increased exploitation is not how they describe it. In fact there are increasing wages for First World workers here, while exploitation is increased in the Third World. First World people do not carry the lion’s share of value creation, workers in the Third World do. They are facing increasing exploitation. Factories that fall apart trapping hundreds inside killing them.[18] Death squads are sent to kill union activists to keep workers from unionizing.[19][20] Exploitation is increasing in the Third World in order to pacify the people in the First World. The line of the RCP Canada is claiming that they are the victims of the global order when they are certainly benefitting from cheap clothing and other cheap commodities creating abundance for them.[21][22] First World people are increasing their living standards from the increasing brutal oppression and murderous exploitation the Third World masses.

In their analysis they misinterpret social trends to justify their outlook and claim that they are the victims. They correctly note “[…] capital’s destructive quest for surplus value, destroying all barriers that prevent its free circulation (whether it be investments in the Health care system, education, labor legislation, work security, etc.)”. They are incorrect when they assert that “[t]hese attacks are proof that the bourgeoisie is experiencing problems and is unable to maintain its domination as in the past […]”. The bourgeoisie are pushing for such privatization because there is so little opposition to it. In the past there has been such radical mainstream opposition to such actions. Now there seems little interest by the “masses” of Canada. Protest to secure such universal rights is weakening. The bourgeoisie are not in a desperate situation, they are recognising that conditions are ripe for assault. Capitalism is not in a desperate situation, it is in fact coming out of its crisis now that it has room to expand after much capital was destroyed during the Great Recession. Corporate Canada is posting higher profits than before, and much more than even in 2002 when these words were written.[23][24]

The RCP claims that the bourgeoisie are in such a state that they cannot afford to buy off First World workers with what they call “crumbs”. This idea is clearly false. As I have already mentioned Canada has the strongest middle class. Wages have increased even for the lowest of workers. Where are the violent rebellions against the state by forces acknowledging the class oppression? They are not in existence. Their lack of recognising real material conditions is made even more stark with the claims that First World living conditions are “crumbs” thrown down by the bourgeoisie. I suppose they maybe crumbs in comparison to the richest of the rich. In reality, these crumbs are brass rings that people in the Third World reach desperately for. Mexicans constantly risk their lives crossing into the U.S. for even less than what the middle class has.[25] There is no comparison between a minimum wage worker in Canada who has access to all kinds of social programs and a peasant farmer who has nothing but the threat of destitution and death hanging over this head. These so-called “crumbs” are the privilege of living in the First World and benefitting off of the super exploitation of modern day imperialism. First Worldists only demand more exploitation at the expense of the Third World. They insult the Third World by claiming that their vastly superior living standards are “crumbs”.

If the claim that exploitation is increasing at the expense of the working class in Canada; then please explain the increasing wages? Exploitation is increasing, on a global scale, not a national scale. For the bourgeoisie to become richer they must engage in an increasing unequal exchange. If profits are rising and wages are rising as well, where is the exploitation coming from? An unequal exchange carried out on a global scale. Why is it we have access to increasing amounts of cheaper commodities if we’re supposedly being squeezed harder? Because the Third World is being squeezed harder. They bear the brunt of exploitation, not just economic but environmental as well. Yes there is greater antagonism, but it is between the First and Third World.[26] Who is being killed by drones and U.S. invasions and sanctions? One cannot compare a small increasing phenomenon of police brutality in Canada to the outright genocide that is carried out against Afghanistan, Iraq, and many others. This idea that somehow the Canadian “masses” are in an increasingly desperate situation is a fiction created by their need to paint themselves as a potential revolutionary force, when they most certainly are not. Their feet have been slashed repeatedly in the course of their own writings. With every word they utter millimetres disappear from their toes.

“In deepening our understanding of revolution and its requirements, we are struggling against those who conjure up abstract ideas, empty from any meaning. We also vigorously oppose all those who wish to mechanically reproduce, without any changes, historical experiences from abroad and of the past, which they wish to apply as home made recipes. These people do not take into consideration the specific conditions of a given country; they limit themselves to one form of struggle, one way of fighting, without understanding that the workings of revolutionary struggle are extremely complex. To hope win, the great Marxist thinkers always stressed the importance of taking into account all methods of struggle. Lenin sum this up by writing that “in order to accomplish its task the revolutionary class must be able to master all forms or aspects of social activity without exception [and] be prepared for the most rapid and brusque replacement of one form by another” (Collected Works, Vol. 31). Mao said that the revolutionary initiative “is not something imaginary but is concrete and material” (Problems of Strategy in China’s Revolutionary War); this endeavor rests on the concrete analysis of a concrete situation.”[27]

Here we can plainly see the astounding contradiction in their line. They claim, “[w]e also vigorously oppose all those who wish to mechanically reproduce, without any changes, historical experiences from abroad and of the past, which they wish to apply as home made recipes.” Yet this is exactly what they have done. They have made no theoretical contribution to Marxist theory which would correspond to the material conditions of Canada. They do rightfully acknowledge that Canada is an imperialist power itself.[28] They do rightfully acknowledge that all Canadians are sitting on stolen First Nation’s land.[29] They acknowledge them, yet they do not produce a theory corresponding to that acknowledgement. This “mechanical” reproduction without any changes is exactly what they have done. If they acknowledge both of the afore mentioned facts, how do they fit into their theory? They say (correctly) that Canada is an imperialist power, so how is that fact combated by producing revolution in Canada? They make no such statement or produce any theory surrounding it. They merely assert that the battle for revolution in Canada includes the fight against imperialism. But how? In what way? All they are saying is that the revolution in Canada will end imperialism. So essentially they are saying nothing at all. All they are saying is that they will end Canadian imperialism upon achieving victory. Yet, that very aspect of imperialism is a part of why revolution is so hard to carry out (I’d say impossible) in the country to begin with. The benefits (or “crumbs” as they call it) of imperialism are what produce the living standards that keep the Canadian “masses” from having much more than their chains to lose. Do they acknowledge that living conditions, even of the poorest of Canadians, are astronomically greater than in 1848? So what they are really saying is, the end result of revolution will deal with the contradiction of imperialism that is preventing revolution from happening in the first place. The substance of what they have put forward is to “[…]conjure up abstract ideas, empty from any meaning[…]”. We can clearly see that there is no meaning there as it literally doesn’t affect the theory of how to build revolution in Canada to begin with. They go against their quote from Mao.

“The initiative is not something imaginary but is concrete and material.”[30]

Clearly from their own words their initiative is something imaginary. There are no mass movements, their theory doesn’t even explain how to create a mass movement among Canadian “masses”. They have only asserted that revolution must happen and that they must reach the Canadian “masses”. There is nothing concrete here, they’re not even fully aware of the concrete conditions; given that they don’t include it in their theory how to (supposedly) overcome the benefits of imperialism that Canadians receive to reach them and make them revolutionary. The RCP Canada simply asserts that they will reach people. In fact we can take this quote even further. The whole quote is as follows.

“The initiative is not something imaginary but is concrete and material. Here the most important thing is to conserve and mass an armed force that is as large as possible and full of fighting spirit.”[31]

Mao was actually speaking about a literal war, actual physical combat. This is one thing the RCP Canada certainly does not do, despite protestations to the contrary claiming they’ve undertaken revolutionary action, and claiming to be revolutionaries. What concrete initiative are they referring to? Concrete initiative in this context that Mao is using is a period of open physical warfare, something that is clearly not occurring. There is no armed struggle going on. What concrete initiative are they referring to? None, this is “something imaginary” they have invented. The masses are not rising up in revolution as they claim. Their “concrete analysis of a concrete situation” is more akin to that of Astroturf then concrete.

“Some only construe from a historical experience specific to a given period; others are bent on interpreting from each and every new method of struggle only what can be reproduced in a particular circumstance. This way of conceiving things is sometimes expressed in the following words: “Lenin said such and such a thing, but it was in a period of civil war“, or “Mao developed protracted people’s war, but China was an oppressed country“. This type of reasoning completely strips Marxism of its living essence and prevents the masses from learning on the various experiences that would otherwise allow them to more fully embrace revolution, including situations that are more pointedly revolutionary. This false conception also entraps the vanguard’s activity within the sole limits of propaganda and agitation, alienating revolutionary practice from its proper function.

“In imperialist countries, it is precisely against this conception that we must struggle to overcome the obstacles that block the development of a correct political line. We must struggle against the separation of theory and practice by forging “the indispensable unity that must exist between revolutionary content and revolutionary activity-between statement and action/what we say and what we do-too often dissociated in proletarian practice“.(“Socialisme Maintenant!“, No. 5)”[32]

The irony here is that what they rightfully attack is exactly what they themselves are guilty of. Throughout their works they quote Mao and Lenin out of the historical context in which both men spoke. Sometimes statements are specific to a certain period despite what the RCP claims here. This is one good reason why they think protesting and handing out pamphlets is a form of People’s War. Marx did say worker’s have “nothing to lose but their chains” for example. You can’t take a wealthy and over privileged class of people and claim this applies to them in a different context. The lowestest of the low were the ones Marx said had revolutionary potential. This certainly doesn’t speak of the First World population. The worker in Canada doesn’t have the living conditions of a worker in 1840’s Europe which was what Marx was talking about. The RCP dogmatically applies Marx’s words onto the lower working population of Canada who have a living standard drastically higher than say the upper-middle of 1840’s industrial Europe. The RCP speaks against stripping the science from Marxism , yet they have unscientifically applied Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to First World Canada. In substance the RCP has an uncritical line considering they haven’t reached the Canadian “masses” , they haven’t made People’s War. Why is that? Why haven’t they succeeded in this where everyone else in Canada (CPC, CPCML) have failed? What really makes the RCP different from them other than the fact they don’t run in elections? I certainly don’t think they have more influence in society than the CPC does.

Marxism without its “living essence” “entraps the vanguard’s activity within the sole limits of propaganda and agitation”. If they claim to be against this, or that their line and work opposes this, why are they in this position? The RCP Canada is just doing agitation and propaganda, that isn’t even reaching the Canadian public. In substance they are doing the very thing they claim to be against. When we look at their theory and their practise, there very much is a “separation of theory and practice”. Their actions do not correspond to their theory. What revolution are they speaking of? What People’s War are they speaking of? Their actions do not match their words.

When we really look at the RCP Canada’s line and their view of Canada, we don’t see very much. They haven’t identified anything that would make their party revolutionary, or capable of taking some form of power. At best they can parasitically hold onto First Nations struggle which is not the basis for a country wide revolution. They claim to be against a non-scientific stance, yet they take a line which doesn’t correspond to Canada’s material conditions. Nor have they produced a plan of action for revolution in Canada based on those material conditions. They keep claiming that there is revolution potential when there is not. They act as though they are doing People’s War when they are not. They are trying to make reality fit their theory, and not the theory fit reality.

An honest look at themselves should tell them that their feet are bleeding.

[10] Bill C-51 is “anti-terorrism” legislation intended to make sharing information on individuals across security and law enforcement agencies. The legislation p[resents a clear threat to the civil rights of Canadians because it deliberately gives police power to spy on and subvert lawful protest such as environmental and First Nations issues. It essentially places these protests in the same category as terrorism.

[11] “Early in World War II, the Communist Party of Canada was formally banned and many of its leaders interned. After a major public campaign the CPC was legally reorganized as the Labor-Progressive Party. Rose won election to the House of Commons as an LPP candidate from Cartier in a 1943 by-election. He won with 30% of the vote in a tight four way race, beating among others, David Lewis of the social democratic Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). Rose was re-elected in the 1945 election with 40% of the vote. Most of the riding’s immigrant Jewish population voted for Rose, who benefitted from the perception [actually it was a fact] that the Soviet Union was the main hope for saving Europe’s Jews from Hitler; his main rival, Paul Massé, of the anti-war Bloc Populaire, who came second, was supported by the French Canadian population of the constituency.” (Wikipedia) Later Fred Rose was accused of being a “Stalinist” spy with no evidence given to the public, and other forced to give false confessions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rose_(politician)#Election_to_parliament

(Their party programme doesn’t actually claim imperialism is the primary contradiction. It instead says “In Canada, where capitalism has reached its full development, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie form the principal contradiction.” This flies in the face of both Lenin and Mao. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.)

[29] RCP Canada Party Programme, 7. Against national oppression! Against nationalism and chauvinism! Fight for absolute equality for all nations and languages!